Allowed

Chhotey Singh v. Smt. Ramshiya and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2018FAFO/1649/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order. The Court held that under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the vehicle owner is strictly liable and cannot be exonerated merely because the vehicle was owned by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The owner must pay the compensation claim.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and decree are modified to hold the owner of the vehicle liable to pay the claimants; the amount to be deposited within 12 weeks.

Chhotey Singh Vs Smt. Ramshiya and 3 Others — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1649 of 2013

¶3

Appellant :- Chhotey Singh Respondent :- Smt. Ramshiya And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vikram D. Chauhan

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶5

This First Appeal From Order has been filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to 'Act, 1988') by appellant, being aggrieved by order dated 21.3.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.14, Jhansi.

¶6

The accident took place on 2.4.2000. The claimants preferred a claim petition under Section 163A alleging that the vehicle bearing Ambassador Car No. 02/3101 was owned by Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh the claimants had alleged that the insurance of the said vehicle for the period of accident and the insurance company could not be found.

¶7

The claimants claimed a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- for the death of his daughter who was aged about 13 years at the time of accident. Tribunal decided the matter on 21.3.2013 holding the driver of the said vehicle negligent and the only responsible person and as the vehicle was owned by Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh the Tribunal felt that no liability could be mulcted on the owner of the vehicle namely, Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

¶8

The claim petition under Section 163A and it is rightly submitted that as per the provision of Section 163A of Act, 1988, it is the owner alone who can be held responsible as the negligence has not to be decided. The finding that the owner can not be held liable as it is the instrumentality of the State is

¶9

against the very provisions of the Act, 1988.

¶10

Sri S.K. Mehrotra-Advocate tried to substantiate that the driver is primarily liable to pay for his tortuous act and he has been rightly held liable to pay the compensation under Act, 1988. It is further submitted by Sri Mehrotra that the High Court has been rightly exonerated as it is not liable under tort law being an instrumentality of State.

¶11

In that view of the matter, without further delving into the factual aspect, provisions of Section 163A which read as follows : -

¶12

"163A . Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.

¶13

Explanation - For the purposes of this sub-section, "permanent disability" shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923(8 of 1923).

¶14

(2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.

¶15

(3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule. "

¶16

Sri Vikram D. Chauhan, learned counsel for appellant submitted that Section 163A being a special legislation, does not legislate about the liability of the driver as the Section 163A is is based on no fault liability principles.

¶17

The Section 163A requires that the owner of the motor vehicle shall be liable to pay and, therefore, the High Court could not have been exonerated.

¶18

Hence, this appeal succeeds. The judgment and decree shall stand modified and the owner of the vehicle shall be liable to pay the claimants. The amount be deposited within 12 weeks from today.

¶19

This Court is thankful to both the Advocates for their assistance who appeared on behalf of driver as well as on behalf of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

¶20

Order Date :- 4.1.2018 Mukesh

Chhotey Singh v. Smt. Ramshiya and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhotey Singh v. Smt. Ramshiya and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Chand and Another Vs Kalicharan Alias Kallu and Another

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Lad Bai and Another

Aijaz Khan Vs M.C.Gupta and Others

Union of India and Others Vs Vimla Devi and Others

Jal Sansthan Jhansi Division and Another Vs Bashir Ahmadl and Others

M/S Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Bunda Devi